Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the required asset_statuses:write scope and the fact that the built-in Archived status cannot be deleted. These are meaningful behavioral constraints not present in the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the scope and restriction clauses. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter delete with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs to know that aren't structured: the required scope and the undeletable Archived status. Complete for the tool's complexity, with only minor room for a pagination/return note.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'id' fully, and the description adds only 'by ID' with no additional format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an asset status by ID'), which is unambiguous and distinct from sibling operations. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the name and description together are precise enough for routing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'by ID' and the deletion constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like update_asset_status or create_asset_status. The Archived-status restriction is a useful condition but not a full usage policy.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.